s12 observations (reffing etc)

s12 observations (reffing etc)

Post by Ian Wrig » Tue, 28 May 1996 04:00:00


Some of this I have taken from SA RUGBY others are my own burbling,

1.  Rugby must use television as cricket does

Ask NSW, bad reffing cost them the game against Canterbry, ateam of 4 refs (1
ref, i replacement sitting watching TV and 2 observent TJ's) to have say on
potential try scoring and foul play).

2.  SA gets the tougher deal on travel

3.  VERY NB,  rugby laws are not up to it they must be better conceived witten
and simplified and what about this rubbish about interpretation,  In both the
NTVL semi annd the final the refs interpretation of playing the ball on the
ground left a lot to be desired, taking both visiting far to long to adapt to
his lax decisions, BTW this is not a whinge Aland did enough to win anyway.  
Case in point NTVL vs Otago saw the player rightly penalised when playing on
their knees etc but when WP played Otago anything went with players falling
over each other like building blocks. This is a case for too much
interpretation, the ref must blow according to the laws and cannot allow
advantage when a team wins it illegally it is all very well to have a nice
flowing game but it must be done within the rules!!

4.  Refs favour home teams

Visiting sides always got penalised more than the home team.  Officials too
skint to spend money on travelling refs!!

5.  visiting players are the only ones playing dirty.

Of the 13 citings so far 11 have been against visitors.  Interesting to note
with the Kevin Putt incident, he was being held  by player whom knew he wanted
to take the quick tap, thus THEY were commiting a professional fowl and could
have been ordered off and possibly a penilty try if the ref thought he may
have scored.  Interesting to notr th WP player cited for dtomping was ina
similar situation where the opposing player would not release the ball.  I am
not condoning the retaliation but the efs and especially the touch judges must
do something before the frustration comes in.

6..  Last but not least, bar a few problems the S12 was  resounding success
(except the final:().  Tons of tries and exciting moments, down sides are the
phone call from the Kiw inlaws rubbing salt into the wounds.  On a serious
note the reffing has to be jacked up.  I don't particularily blame their
competence, they need to be given more support and a cross the board (or
country) list of so called interpretations so that the playing fields,
especially for the visiting side, are leveled.  Watch when the northern hem
refs do games down south and see how the players react to their
interpretations!!

Regards Ian

from a quite LAST OUTPOST

 
 
 

s12 observations (reffing etc)

Post by Terry Fitzpatri » Tue, 28 May 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>Some of this I have taken from SA RUGBY others are my own burbling,

>1.  Rugby must use television as cricket does

>Ask NSW, bad reffing cost them the game against Canterbry, ateam of 4 refs (1
>ref, i replacement sitting watching TV and 2 observent TJ's) to have say on
>potential try scoring and foul play).

>2.  SA gets the tougher deal on travel

>3.  VERY NB,  rugby laws are not up to it they must be better conceived witten
>and simplified and what about this rubbish about interpretation,  In both the
>NTVL semi annd the final the refs interpretation of playing the ball on the
>ground left a lot to be desired, taking both visiting far to long to adapt to
>his lax decisions, BTW this is not a whinge Aland did enough to win anyway.  
>Case in point NTVL vs Otago saw the player rightly penalised when playing on
>their knees etc but when WP played Otago anything went with players falling
>over each other like building blocks. This is a case for too much
>interpretation, the ref must blow according to the laws and cannot allow
>advantage when a team wins it illegally it is all very well to have a nice
>flowing game but it must be done within the rules!!

>4.  Refs favour home teams

>Visiting sides always got penalised more than the home team.  Officials too
>skint to spend money on travelling refs!!

>5.  visiting players are the only ones playing dirty.

>Of the 13 citings so far 11 have been against visitors.  Interesting to note
>with the Kevin Putt incident, he was being held  by player whom knew he wanted
>to take the quick tap, thus THEY were commiting a professional fowl and could
>have been ordered off and possibly a penilty try if the ref thought he may
>have scored.  Interesting to notr th WP player cited for dtomping was ina
>similar situation where the opposing player would not release the ball.  I am
>not condoning the retaliation but the efs and especially the touch judges must
>do something before the frustration comes in.

>6..  Last but not least, bar a few problems the S12 was  resounding success
>(except the final:().  Tons of tries and exciting moments, down sides are the
>phone call from the Kiw inlaws rubbing salt into the wounds.  On a serious
>note the reffing has to be jacked up.  I don't particularily blame their
>competence, they need to be given more support and a cross the board (or
>country) list of so called interpretations so that the playing fields,
>especially for the visiting side, are leveled.  Watch when the northern hem
>refs do games down south and see how the players react to their
>interpretations!!

What is the rule about refs? Do the home team have the advantage of a
"home" ref. I am not implying that this would make the ref biased,
but, as noted above, the rules are open to some interpretation, and
the home teams will have the advantage of knowing how the ref will
interpret things. This will put the away team at a disadvantage. This
can lead to frustration and may go some way to explaining the high
count of citations against visiting players.

I know that it is a bit easier in Europe, but in the 5N, we use
neutral referees so that neither side has any advantage. I appreciate
that the distances involved are much greater, but it would only be a
relatively small additional cost. Is this being considered for the
future? It would be nice to think that international refereeing
variations could be eliminated, but it is difficult to see how this
can be achieved in practice.

Regards

Terry

 
 
 

s12 observations (reffing etc)

Post by Rob Lo » Fri, 31 May 1996 04:00:00


Quote:


>>Some of this I have taken from SA RUGBY others are my own burbling,

>>1.  Rugby must use television as cricket does

>>Ask NSW, bad reffing cost them the game against Canterbry, ateam of 4 refs
(1
>>ref, i replacement sitting watching TV and 2 observent TJ's) to have say
on
>>potential try scoring and foul play).

>There maybe some merit in introducing another set (or 2) of eyes but

there could also be a down side. Quite often Aussie League officials
stuff up quite badly in in-goal decisions. A recent case saw the in-goal TJ
say no try, the sideline TJ saying yes and the Ref agreeing
with the latter. The TV replay clearly showed no try but more importantly
showed the Ref to be in a position to be able to see the
whole incident for himself. My theory is that a rugby union ref knows
the acid is on in this situation and will work harder to be in position to
make the right decision. With more officials will the ref relax and
rely on a 'committee' decision to get him out of the crap?

Cheers, Rob.